According to the Supreme Court it could be 1000 years and still be constitutional. That is why Jefferson advised Madison to include a fixed number of years in the Bill of Rights -- that no monopoly should last longer than an author's lifetime.

(And once again Jefferson demonstrated an uncanny ability to predict future events... that the monopoly for artists/media companies would be extended to insanely long terms.)

I find it interesting that the argument wasn't made that it was effectively unlimited if it exceeded a normal lifespan, or that such an argument, if made, failed.

That argument wouldn't have flown because the court already agreed that "finite time with infinite potential for future retro-active extensions" was "effectively unlimited" in a much more real sense that merely exceeding the author's life span, but that because it wasn't literally unlimited at any given time it wasn't unconstitutional.

Yes, a strict interpretation of the Constitution is that Congress has the power to grant copyright monopolies for a limited time, and the law that was under review specified a limited time and so was Constitutional. The court was simply unwilling to say that the current specified time was "too long", or otherwise eliminate this effective power Congress had to make copyright indefinite by placing a real limit on the power when such was not supported by the Constitution.

Hosting all that data costs money. From a law enforcement point of view it's probably worthless after 5 years anyway.

But you're missing the point. Politically and citizen-control-wise, it can be worth far, far more than gold. Absolutely worth it, to them, to spend our money (not theirs) on it. Just another tax and tick on the debt clock that will never cost *them* a dime.

They have to take our money to retain the data, so that when we get angry because they take our money to retain the data, they can use the data they retained to protect themselves from the citizens who are angry that they're retaining the data.

Who says you have to continually host it? Pull out the archive drives and store them. Still costs some money, but how many TBs could you stuff into a moderately sized broom closet? Besides, knowledge is power, and when you know more about them than they know about you...

Or, you know. He could do his job, and crack down on the abuses regardless of what political consequences it has for him. I, for one, don't believe in giving our representatives a free pass on not doing their job just because they don't want to hurt their chances of re-election.

It's hardly a free pass. Almost everything that happens in politics is due to re-election. The deficit limit shenanigans that resulted in a lower credit rating, and higher borrowing costs, were an election gambit to appease the tea party and fiscal responsibility types. The entire 1980's and more were one big "I'm tougher on crime" pissing match to get votes.

Understanding how laws are passed is the first step in preventing bad laws being passed. The next step is a true institutional memory where abuses are archived, and included in SuperPAC funded advertisements right before the next election.

Your actions will not be forgotten, is the message.

The next step, is to get the people who actually care out to vote.

After that, we need honest people to get pissed off enough that they run for office just so the establishment doesn't keep reinforcing itself. Without the earlier steps, this guy won't stand a chance.

Agreed. Not completely convinced on the SuperPAC, as that risks introducing spin, but absolutely we need to understand why things happen if we're to modify them and we absolutely need to make sure that things aren't swept under the rug. I recognize people change, but change cannot happen without first acknowledging that there was something to change in the first place.

While I agree he has his wacky side (a rather large one at that) it seems he would be much more constitutionally minded than any of the others running. The president's power is in the ability to sign or veto legislation, as commander and chief of the armed services, and who he appoints as judges. If Congressman Paul were elected as president what would be the worst that would happen. We probably wouldn't be starting any wars unless we were attacked. We would stand a better chance of bring all of our troops home. The federal government might shut down like it did in the 90s because congress can't get its shit together and produce a balanced budget because I highly doubt a President Paul would sign one that wasn't balanced. The biggest issue might be anyone who he would appoint to the US Supreme Court, and even there I think I would be willing to pick people who would support individual freedoms and liberties. Problem he comes with a lot of baggage as a large number of established Republicans would rather he didn't run as a R because they are rather embarrassed by his libertarian and dovish sides and the rest of the population is well aware of his more wacky beliefs (note there is probably a fair amount of overlap between these 2 groups). This is why he doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of getting the republican nomination let alone winning the presidency.

After reading Ron Paul's book 'Liberty Defined', the very name of which is nothing but spin, I am more convinced than ever that he is just one more right wing politician who has found a way to more or less disassociate himself from the rest of the right wing politicians by marketing his 'small government' line of bullshit.

He will shrink government by killing democratic programs, nothing more, nothing less.

To those of you haven't read his publications, I suggest you do so - and please try and read a bit beyo

The problem with electing him is that regardless of whether he's on the mark or bat-shit crazy he will stick to his principles and not compromise.

This is why he will never be elected president, and shouldn't be elected president. Being the President of a country is about politics. Politics requires compromising in the face of reality. I've already had enough of a leader who sticks to their ideology against reality.

His supporters tend to ignore that Paul has no problem with state laws that criminalize drugs, homosexuality, or anything else under the sun. He doesn't care if your freedoms get trampled, as long as it isn't the Feds doing it.

...

I take it you've never actually read the Constitution? Specifically, the 10th Amendment, which reads:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

... which basically means that unless the Constitution (or the States, by a 2/3 vote) explicitly states that said function is a power of the federal government, it is not, but rather a power of the States and/or the people. While I personally may not agree with the idea of criminalizing certain groups of people or non-socially harmful activities, the fact remains that the Constitution, as written, gives the states (and the People) that power.

From your link (the one that worked), regarding Paul's "opposition" to the Civil Rights Act of 1964:

"In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676."

So, not the racist screed you want us to think it was, but rather Paul further iterating his ideal that the federal government regularly oversteps the authority granted it by the Constitution.

My favorite thing about Ron Paul bashers is how the 'evidence' they typically provide to show his 'intolerance' tends to have the opposite effect.

We need to take down these terrorists, and if that means ignoring the Bill of Rights and throwing Americans into concentration camps, like we did in WW2, then so be it. As Santorum said, "We must be united in this war. We cannot allow any criticism."

We need to take down these terrorists, and if that means ignoring the Bill of Rights and throwing Americans into concentration camps, like we did in WW2, then so be it.

That's a great idea, and I know just where to start! There's a guy who organized the illegal killing of several Americans in Yemen with a large explosion. He currently resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Washington DC. He has many of accomplices working elsewhere in Washington as well as nearby Arlington, VA.

We need to take down these terrorists, and if that means ignoring the Bill of Rights and throwing Americans into concentration camps, like we did in WW2, then so be it.

That's a great idea, and I know just where to start! There's a guy who organized the illegal killing of several Americans in Yemen with a large explosion. He currently resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Washington DC. He has many of accomplices working elsewhere in Washington as well as nearby Arlington, VA.

Oh, sure, I'm just figuring you start with the guy we know was involved in this particular plot (he bragged about it in public) and know exactly where he is (our security agencies make a big effort to track his every movement quite closely). Once you've picked up him, the next step is clearly to waterboard him until he tells us all about his accomplices.

"The updated Guidelines do not provide any new authorities for the U.S. Government to collect information, nor do they authorize acquisition of data from entities outside the federal government. All information that would be accessed by NCTC under the Guidelines is already in the lawful custody and control of other federal agencies. The Guidelines merely provide the NCTC with a more effective means of accessing and analyzing datasets in the government’s possession th

I really fail to understand how this data is used and if anyone actually checks it or if it is kept in order to incriminate you later. See what happened in Toulouse last week: a man who went in and out Afghanistan and Pakistan, was known to the police, went in and out of jail a couple of times, was known to frequent an extremist group, still managed to kill children in a school and keep the police busy for two days under siege.Shouldn't he have been stopped before?

Keep in mind that it's security theater, not real security. They do these things to increase their budget and power, and justify the increase in budget and power itself and future increases, not to actually do anything to increase safety.

It would be a liability were the public to actually care. The government had good indications that this guy was bad apples, had all these increased powers and ability to suspend our rights, and obviously it failed. But rather than say "Okay, then this isn't working, you guys utterly failed in your stated mission, you guys are fired and we're throwing out all these suspensions of our rights and increased government powers," the public says "TAKE MORE OF OUR RIGHTS! SPEND MORE OF OUR TAXES!!! HAVE MORE POWER!!! JUST PROTECT US FROM ALL THESE BAD GUYS!!!"

But with that said, Bush and Friends not only set the wheels in motion, but they did everything to ensure that the switches on the tracks were broken and locked into place and that the brake mechanisms were removed.

Absolutely. Basically US agencies have the cart blanche for spying on any non-US citizens in any way they like. I wouldn't be surprised if they already have built a giant database with all information about any non-US person they can gather just because they can.

I'd be curious about how long they store those fingerprints they collect at border crossings, actually (God, what a hassle!). Also, what they do to them if the person crossed becomes a citizen later on.

aside from the obvious reasons, my end users will read it and expect me to be able to archive 5 years of their data and email. We just don't have the storage capacity or funds to buy more for that kind of archival, the state is in a world of financial hurt. Must be nice to be the Fed.

Thanks to the US govt people can stop worrying about the trilateral commission and smoking old men in dark back rooms. Who needs conspiracy theories are theorists when the govt. can do anything it wants right out in the open. We're all criminals and pirates. Well except for white collar criminals, their just good capitalists.

the united states government is pursuing terrorists so voraciously, it is not because they have your safety as a primary concern. Natural disasters are easily shrugged off, for example little effort was put into katrina and many lives lost due to government neglegence but no real repercussions arose from the incident, just a smooth shuffling of deck chairs so to speak.

the occupy protests, while they included violent police crackdowns on citizens and journalists alike, also received no real repercussions that couldnt be easily dismissed by the government as the rantings of kids and slackers with "no clear message" and "subversive" tendencies.

terrorism on the other hand brings results. it undermines a government in ways that are unchallengeable as it is an amorphous concept. theres no real enemy, despite how badly america wanted it to be osama, or sadam, or al-awlaki. Terrorism is an ideology, and every troop from the legions of rome to the english military officer who stood guard against the irish menace during the troubles understands that no weapon will ever purge it from the earth. terrorism is determination with absolutely nothing to lose; the last resort of a broken people.

you dont disarm terrorists by spying on everyone, because anyone can be a terrorist at any time it simply is not efficient. the only way to stop terrorism is to recognize the demands of the terrorist and try to understand what it is thats driven them to it. so long as we continue to fight, we will meet the immovable object to our unstoppable force each time with no ground gained or lost on either side.

+1 Insightful
Now, cue the retards who will try to skewer you for being "soft" on terrorists. Never mind the fact that more people die in auto accidents every few weeks than died at the hands of terrorists on 9/11/2001. A healthy perspective is not something that fearful people usually have. That's why it is doubly shameful for our leaders to still fanning the flames of that fear, rather than helping us to collectively regain our perspective.

you dont disarm terrorists by spying on everyone, because anyone can be a terrorist at any time it simply is not efficient. the only way to stop terrorism is to recognize the demands of the terrorist and try to understand what it is thats driven them to it. so long as we continue to fight, we will meet the immovable object to our unstoppable force each time with no ground gained or lost on either side.

You make two assumptions here that history has proven to more or less be invalid:

1) The government is actually, genuinely interested in stopping terrorism.2) Stopping terrorism is more important than say, making money.

The US is currently pressuring various European countries to open their police databases to automated queries by US authorities. This kind of stuff is the reason that the smarter European countries are refusing. The US has no concept of privacy laws - once data is released to one agency, you can pretty much assume that they will share it willy nilly with other agencies. The data retention laws are incredibly lax. In the end, you have zero assurance what happens to personal data, once the government has it.

Despite the ravings on/. most Americans don't seem to give a crap about the slow ceaseless erosion of their rights because they do believe that it is for their own good/safety. A large swath of the country has believes that we need to spread the "American Way of Life" to the rest of the world and bring democracy the "Random Third World Shit Holes" using our valiant armed services, or words to that effect. There are some of us who try to get our elected officials to not do these things but it doesn't seem l